June 24, 20223 yr 26 minutes ago, TEW said: I’ll actually agree with him here. They absolutely did. The key here is that there is an amendment process. The founders set the ground rules. But like the NFL changing the distance of extra points or the NBA adding the 3 point line, the founders allowed for changes to the rules to keep up with things they couldn’t foresee. But amendments are hard. And the modern American doesn’t like hard. I know you believe this as well and you are only partially correct the way I see it. No, they did not try to deal with every possible scenario 230+ years forward. Instead, they set the basic key tenets and then put in a process that allowed for updates. So, yeah they put in a mechanism to effect change BUT that isn't what 70fg is going on about. In his mind, there wouldn't be any need for an update process and that's the point.
June 24, 20223 yr 10 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: You spoke above of context but the quotes that are often used to support what you’re saying are taken out of context. The constitution has a built in fail safe for you’re infinite scenario problem and that’s in article V I don't claim to represent all others and their arguments. If you need any evidence at all to show you that the founders knew their words wouldn't always be enough in every instance going forward then Article V is it.
June 24, 20223 yr Just now, DrPhilly said: I don't claim to represent all others and their arguments. If you need any evidence at all to show you that the founders knew their words wouldn't always be enough in every instance going forward then Article V is it. Perfect, so that’s what needs to be invoked, but they certainly didn’t include an article that says well if you can’t get the votes for article v the court can go ahead and use Jefferson’s diary as law
June 24, 20223 yr Just now, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Perfect, so that’s what needs to be invoked, but they certainly didn’t include an article that says well if you can’t get the votes for article v the court can go ahead and use Jefferson’s diary as law ...and I never suggested as such
June 24, 20223 yr 14 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: ...and I never suggested as such Oh so where are you getting evidence of intent then
June 24, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Oh so where are you getting evidence of intent then
June 24, 20223 yr 56 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: I know you believe this as well and you are only partially correct the way I see it. No, they did not try to deal with every possible scenario 230+ years forward. Instead, they set the basic key tenets and then put in a process that allowed for updates. So, yeah they put in a mechanism to effect change BUT that isn't what 70fg is going on about. In his mind, there wouldn't be any need for an update process and that's the point. The Constitution is a series of compromises. They didn’t put a lot of thought into the specific wording. That’s how some passages ended up ambiguous. And fwiw, most of what 70 yard fg has argued here is dead wrong.
June 24, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: The Constitution is a series of compromises. They didn’t put a lot of thought into the specific wording. That’s how some passages ended up ambiguous. And fwiw, most of what 70 yard fg has argued here is dead wrong. Where are you getting this idea that so many passages are ambiguous or that the founders didn’t put a lot of thought into wording? MSNBC if I had to guess You make it sound like it was written by a cheap country lawyer
June 24, 20223 yr 16 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Where are you getting this idea that so many passages are ambiguous or that the founders didn’t put a lot of thought into wording? MSNBC if I had to guess You make it sound like it was written by a cheap country lawyer There was testimony just this week in the 1/6 hearings about one of the passages where they were talking about the electoral vote counting process. I guess it was ambiguous enough for some folks to argue that Pence could just appoint Trump President.
June 24, 20223 yr Btw, you keep saying the Constitutional Convention of 1789. You don’t even have the right year, my guy.
June 24, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: There was testimony just this week in the 1/6 hearings about one of the passages where they were talking about the electoral vote counting process. I guess it was ambiguous enough for some folks to argue that Pence could just appoint Trump President. Article II is pretty clear there. The president of the senate merely opens the certificates. The votes are then counted, and it does not appear to matter who counts them. I haven’t been following the debate on this lately, but I gather there is some controversy over dual slates of electors. Cases and controversies are handled by the court, according to article iii. The only controversy I guess would be which votes were legitimate as to having been selected by direction of the legislature
June 24, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, Dave Moss said: White women are back in play for the Democrats. Lol Balances out the Latino vote that was shifting to the Republicans.
June 24, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, Dave Moss said: White women are back in play for the Democrats. Lol Does that mean they aren’t racist anymore?
June 24, 20223 yr 8 hours ago, DrPhilly said: I know you believe this as well and you are only partially correct the way I see it. No, they did not try to deal with every possible scenario 230+ years forward. Instead, they set the basic key tenets and then put in a process that allowed for updates. So, yeah they put in a mechanism to effect change BUT that isn't what 70fg is going on about. In his mind, there wouldn't be any need for an update process and that's the point. Well, it’s subjective if there is a need for updates in the first place.
June 24, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, TEW said: Well, it’s subjective if there is a need for updates in the first place. Not mutually exclusive
June 25, 20223 yr On 6/24/2022 at 12:45 PM, DrPhilly said: Does that mean they aren’t racist anymore? Depends on what their use is at the time.
June 27, 20223 yr Quote WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday sided with a former high school football coach who lost his job for offering prayers at the 50-yard line after games despite objections from the school district that students felt compelled to take part. In the latest instance of the nation's highest court backing a religious freedom claim, a majority of the justices said that assistant coach Joseph Kennedy's prayers were a private matter and did not amount to the school district's endorsement of Christianity.
June 27, 20223 yr 37 minutes ago, mr_hunt said: I'd have to get more details on this. Praying in school (despite the whining of right wingers) is common place in schools. It is and should be allowed. This includes students and teachers who carry around a prayer rug and pray to mecca 3 times a day or whatever. Students "felt compelled to take part". What does that mean? Feelings don't really factor into the law. If there were some sort of punitive action taken against students who did not take part, then its a big problem.
Create an account or sign in to comment